Hey /pol/ what should self-driving cars do in the following situation?
If a child jumps out into the middle of the road, should the car swerve into oncoming traffic, possibly killing you and someone in another car, or should it continue on and hit the child?
Or what if it's a pregnant woman? A male?
Should your car take in consideration of the safety ratings of the car surrounding you before deciding? Should it just commit suicide and drive off the road? What if the road is near a cliff?
>>73806794
Morals dont matter, they got in the road where vehicles go.
The pedestrians get hit while the self driving car does its best to brake.
Shoot the hostage
Depends on way too many variables.
What's the speed of the car?
how many lanes is there?
This is most likely to happen in a residential area. so I'm guessing 25Mph 2 lanes.
It would be pretty hard for the car not to stop safely.
The kid would pretty much have to try and get hit.
in which case, isn't the cars fault
>>73806794
Same thing a driver would do. Slam on the breaks.
>>73806794
This scenario is a red herring because it well almost never happen. In 99.9999% of cases the best thing the car can do is just to come to a complete stop as quickly and as safely as possible. So that's what they're going to do.
I trust a self driving care to drive safely far more than I trust a human driver to drive safely. They're never drunk, never distracted, never tired, and always follow all traffic laws and speed limits. Given that, if someone still manages to get hit by one, it's kind of their own fucking fault, so I don't care.
Self driving cars should be able to solve this.
>>73806794
The car should steer into the next kindergarten
>>73806794
>tfw the cars will be programmed to go for straight white males first in case of an accident
>>73807388
>The kid would pretty much have to try and get hit.
Have you seen children play near roads, ever? They're idiots...
>>73806794
The car would be at an appropriate speed and would be able to respond fast enough to stop. There is no need for fast speed limits in a world where there are no stop lights or signs, therefore speed limits will probably be limited to 20 40 and 60, 60 being for Highways. There would be no traffic jams ever and it would flow without impedance.
>>73807634
>I trust a self driving care to drive safely far more than I trust a human driver to drive safely. They're never drunk, never distracted, never tired, and always follow all traffic laws and speed limits.
They're machines. Powered by computers... Have you never seen machines malfunctions? Computers crash? Bugs? Errors?
Because the robots at my work do all of those things. Often. And they operate in an entirely controlled environment, without children playing... Just 15 little robots that cannot even move freely because they're on a grid, and they STILL manage to run into shit.
>>73807975
>while playing the trigglypoof war cry on a PA
>>73808110
>There is no need for fast speed limits in a world where there are no stop lights or signs, therefore speed limits will probably be limited to 20 40 and 60, 60 being for Highways.
Why do you hate freedom, anon?
>>73806794
Pedestrians should use designated pathways and streets.
>>73807866
Or it could just.. you know.. stop.
>>73808159
If because of this you have more inherent trust of humans operating deadly vehicles than machines, you need to reevaluate your positions for self driving vehicles. Will they malfunction. Absolutely. Will they be perfect. No. But they will be infinitely more safer than people at driving a car from point A to point B.
No one will enter one of these cars unless they are programmed to save you at all costs. If a car prioritized other lives, it will lose to a competing car that prioritized your life.
>>73806794
It should protect the occupants first and foremost
>ywn realize your car loves you as it barrels over a child rather than harm you
This is just a reinterpretation of the trolley problem.
>>73808245
I don't. I am only telling you how it might be. I could be wrong and because they are more safe, they actually increase speed limits. Who knows.
>>73806794
Why do these scenarios always think a crash = certain death?
>>73808465
No.
>le self driving meme.
Do people still seriously believe this?
>>73806794
How about a self driving car that LOCKS ONTO PEOPLE WEARING EARBUDS AHAHAHAHHGAHAHAHAGAGAGAGAHAVAGAHAHAHHHHHAHHAHA
It should deploy self defense spike of impaling. If you are in the way Vlad the Car will impale.
>>73808621
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I5rraWJq6E
>>73807275
Ding ding, right answer
>>73807866
It doesn't make sense to program in a 'swerve' decision into a car.
When there's the possibility of an accident, the car should threshold brake and consider valid traffic lanes on the road as options to use to avoid an accident.
But that's it, creating some sort of ethical swerve decision is ridiculous.
>>73807866
The answer would be A, because he's black
Self-driving cars should put the safety of people obeying the law above the safety of people who aren't. That way, no one can cheat the system.
If someone jumps into the road and there's no safe way to avoid them, the car should do some Initial D drifting shit to run over them.
>>73808609
The only moral choice in this situation is to walk away so that you don't devalue one person's life over another.
Kantian philosophy is fucked up sometimes lmao
>>73806794
How about it just uses the breaks?
>>73808744
So? That shit already exist on normal cars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_spot_monitor
>>73808159
>Just 15 little robots that cannot even move freely because they're on a grid, and they STILL manage to run into shit.
I'm going to bet whoever is programming these robots at your work is a way shittier programmer than Google employees
>>73808609
So I will pull the lever and never look at the train ever again. Easy.
Regardless of who the person jumping into the road is, the car should ONLY do this,
1. Slam on the brakes
2. Swerve into a safe place with no oncoming traffic.
We should not be jerryrigging the most optimal solution to safe the most lives based on statistics and blah blah. Just do the most obvious thing that protects the driver first and foremost. Any car should be duty bound to protect the owner/passengers before anyone else.
>>73808954
How are you this fucking jaded?
>>73808351
>But they will be infinitely more safer than people at driving a car from point A to point B.
At some point in time? No doubt... In the near future? Absolutely not.
Also bear in mind that not all of the world is America... Not all of us get our licences for jokes and giggles at age 16, and not all infrastructure in the world looks like US infrastructure.. I imagine that if you program a car to drive through a city like Amsterdam 'safely', it will just not move at all because 'UNPROTECTED ROAD USER IN CLOSE PROXIMITY, POWERING DOWN'..
How about this: your car is driving you to work when a group of peaceful Black Lives Matter protestors set up a roadblock ahead. The protestors are armed. Should the car stop in front of the road block so as not to hit the peaceful youths? Or should it continue on and risk hurting innocent lives?
The car should drive into the biggest group of people and then explode.
Allahu Akbar!
>>73809372
>The protesters are armed
Plow right on through
>>73808495
Why do most US states don't have a limit over 60 anyway?
>>73808986
Possibly. But do you trust google programmers with your life?
>>73806794
Self-driving cars will be smart enough to instantly calculate the worth of all the people involved (speaking from an insurance point of view) and will act accordingly to make sure that Google - or whoever built the car will pay the least in penalties.
>>73809372
I saw an anon in another thread make a similar argument to this the other day..
>Driving through detroit
>Wild carjacker appears
>Steps in front of your car
Doesn't even have to be armed. A self driving car will simply stop, meaning he can bust your window and drag you out, provided he's a big guy.
>>73809190
I like driving. I like basic automobiles without computers and sensors. I don't want to have to rely on a special mechanic to solve a simple problem with my automobile. I want the freedom to go wherever I damn well please. This restriction of freedom and overcomplication of such a simple component of daily life is sickening to think about.
>>73809604
That's why self driving cars will have .50s mounted on the roof, idiot!
>>73806794
I am learning to drive right now.
My instructor told me that if someone jumps in front of the car I am not allowed to dodge them, I need to keep driving straight while hitting the brakes. If I hit them, I hit them. Dodging them is seen as more dangerous and less responsible.
Same principle would apply to self-driving cars.
>>73809604
Self-driving cars will initially have an override mechanism so you can just flip that and run him over
>>73806794
protect owner at all costs
>>73809975
>initially
And after that? This anon's idea?:>>73809855
>>73809973
The issue is that the pedestrian will proabbly sue the car manufacturer for designing a car that will intentionally cause THEM harm. It's a no win situation for anyone.
>>73809973
I think in NL you're expected to try and dodge people, but not animals.. Obviously while applying the brakes also, but if some stupid kid on a bicyles suddenly comes in front of your car, authorities would rather you drive into a ditch than into the kid. Driving into head on traffic is another story, obviously..
>>73810439
Then the court will find that he caused the accident and it will set a precedent and people can't sue anymore.
>>73810409
Well if you're not driving you could do all kinds of shit, like aiming at anyone coming close.
>>73810439
The cars would be programmed to follow the law. They can't sue the manufacturer for doing what the government told them to do. They can't put the cars on the road without first making sure the car is going to obey the laws.
I can't get on the road without learning traffic laws. A self-driving machine is no different.
>>73810671
That's not what the laws says, at least not here.
A few months ago there was a case where a bus driver dodged someone and drove in a tree. No one got injured and the bus had a little fender bender, but he got fined for it. If he simply hit the brakes and ran over the guy he wouldn't have been fined.
>>73811254
>A few months ago there was a case where a bus driver dodged someone and drove in a tree. No one got injured and the bus had a little fender bender, but he got fined for it. If he simply hit the brakes and ran over the guy he wouldn't have been fined.
That sounds pretty bizarre.... Wasn't there a collective wondering whether maybe that law should be changed?
>>73808293
I want to fuck Corrin's footpussy so badly.
>>73806794
It should brake and then stay on the fucking road. If there are 100 idiot pedestrians on the road and 1 pedestrian on the side walk there 100 idiots on the road should still get hit because they are on the fucking road.
>>73809156
>Keep driver safe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0PuqSMB8uU
>>73807233
FPBP
it should be allowed to crazy swerve it if sees room, I've pulled that maneuver and it's saved my ass a couple times
>>73808609
Not a good enough trolley problem
>Hey /pol/ what should self-driving cars do in the following situation?
They should kill all humans. We all know it's going to happen. Robot factories making robot cars. And the only place that's safe to live is New Jersey where self serve is illegal and a human gas station employee is required to pump gas.
>>73806794
Self-driving car advocates have no answer for the riot.
Blacks walk out in front of cars every minute in Detroit. Autonomous vehicles would stop and wait patiently for them to move.
>>73806794
I fucking paid for the car it better fucking run that kid over.
